Saturday, June 13, 2009

It has happened in the U.S. military, a political party, and then in the federal government, which then led to the ill fated Bush II years we still suffer from.

But the good news is that moderates have now gained the upper hand once again, in the military and in the federal government, even as the struggle still continues in the GOP.

This is good news current progressives tend to forget, because they have developed McPolitics, which does not see things through long enough or deep enough in too many cases; due in part to a youthful lack of patience and vision.

Don't forget that Secretary Gates has pointed out and publicly stated that preparing for fighting a war 50 years from now, by trying to build super-dooper futuristic weaponry now, is ill advised.

His meaning is that the neoCon vision there in the military has been wrong.

Which means, since he can state it publicly, that the moderates are growing stronger within the military and also in the federal government.

Friday, June 12, 2009

Some closely watched the first gulf war during Bush I, and they have compared that mission to the Iraq invasion and endless occupation of Bush II's loose canon years.

Some of those watchers note a distinct change of mind, soul, and spirit in the way the two operations were conducted.

They conclude that something changed U.S. troops from performers in a compassionate coalition during the Bush I war, to the different, torturing, and primarily destructive forces we have seen during Bush II.

Operatives were specifically used to interface with and to infiltrate and indoctrinate the party and the press, which ultimately established and promulgated a new public rhetoric and dialogue.

The republican party had been correctly seen as the party which was more susceptible to an overthrow of its moderates, and to a takeover by its extremist elements to replace those moderate elements.

One could say that in some ways the coup was "brilliant" and it worked.

But now with the value of hindsight, we see that the neoCon element has destroyed the U.S. economy, the Iraqi economy, and even the republican party; in the sense that none of them are the same or as healthy as they were before that neoCon dogma came into power.

In hindsight it can be clearly seen that the traditional military doctrine worked better, so now the moderates within the republican party are wondering exactly what happened, and how to fix it.

That is a titanic struggle which is sure to continue for several years, and it should be noted that the neoCons will not go down easily.

Republicans Mike Murphy and Joe Scarborough were talking with Democrat John Dean on Morning Joe (MSNBC), today, about this very issue, which is the focus of a book by Scarborough.

They all agreed that the republican party needs to reject the neoCon dogma and ideology, or it will never be the controlling party again.

But take heed, the republicans will never completely reach that goal until they first realize the source of their party's illness, and then treat it at the source.

The democrats are the ones who need to beware now, because the neoCon elements have set their sights on them, discarding the republicans as the party of their attention.

Note that my use of the term "military" in this post applies not only to those in uniform, but also to those controlled by those in uniform.

In a book review over at Lew Rockwell's website, in the section "The Straussian Love Affair with War", it is pointed out that warmongering is a trait of the Straussian neoCon elements who infiltrated the republican party.

The definition of the word "coup", as I use it in this post, and as the context suggests, is "a highly successful, unexpected stroke, act, or move; a clever action or accomplishment".

The associated extreme edge phrase "coup d'etat" was not intended nor used because that connotes an illegal change, and since we know hard liners can legally take leadership or lose leadership over the military, a political party, or the federal government, the word "coup" was adequate.

The nomination of Federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court has many all "aTwitter".

Readers may wonder why I have not discussed the Sotomayor matter here yet; it is because I thought I would wait for a convergence of several issues, and then discuss the matter in a relevant and challenging context.

This idea of a military coup in the title ought not be considered so far fetched; I was involved in a lawsuit in the early 80's in which a naval officer testified that they, the US military, practice invasions of the United States all the time.

This is confirmed in a decision of the 2nd Circuit Federal Court of Appeals in which Judge Sotomayor partook:

The Second Circuit case arose when, in October 1999, Michael Zieper put a short film on the Internet that was entitled "Military Takeover of New York City." In the film, an unseen narrator -- with shots of Times Square in the background -- discusses plans for the takeover to occur on New Year's Eve 1999, claims the tape came from his brother in the army, and reports that his brother said copies were "floating around the base." However, the narrator also directly raises an issue about whether the tape is real or fake.

Initially, the FBI simply asked Zieper to remove the film -- apparently cognizant that it would be barred by the First Amendment from ordering him to do so. Zieper's attorneys also stressed this point to them later.

However, eventually, FBI agent Joseph Metzinger and Assistant United States Attorney Lisa Korologos got more aggressive. Metzinger sent an FBI agent and several police officers to Zieper's house. Nevertheless, Zieper held his ground.

It was a case where the court, Sotomayor agreeing, said that FBI agents were immune from liability even though they harassed a film-maker who did a fictional film about the military taking over New York.

The fact is that the military plans many "very bad things" against the United States, as a part of their every day planning, for various reasons.

And lest we forget that the military has also planned actual terrorism against citizens within the United States too. Note:

These proposals - part of a secret anti-Castro program known as Operation Mongoose - included staging the assassinations of Cubans living in the United States, developing a fake Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington, including sink[ing] a boatload of Cuban refugees (real or simulated, faking a Cuban airforce attack on a civilian jetliner, and concocting a Remember the Maine incident by blowing up a U.S. ship in Cuban waters and then blaming the incident on Cuban sabotage. Bamford himself writes that Operation Northwoods may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government.

(National Archives Documents, emphasis added). Clearly what the F.B.I. was doing against an artist exercising First Amendment rights, well before 9/11, was wrong and they should have been held accountable.

Judge Sotomayor was wrong in 2007 to uphold fascist tendencies within the United States Government without at least a dissent.

Instead the court panel should have held that government officials that forget our traditions and law should be held liable, or guilty, as the case may be.

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Neither congress nor the president realize that the propaganda that United States government can manage a budget, at this time, is seen as a fairy tale and a joke by the bulk of the population of the country.

Those who care enough to look into it a bit know that "pay as you go" is a bumper sticker to paste over the last bumper sticker that meant just as much.

In terms of economy, the government of the past decade is little more than the worst thing that could have happened to the nation.

The millions of people of the country are responsible for producing thousands of goods and services, and making wonderful things for the good life of past generations.

The government has been the problem for too long, because they enable a vast criminal mentality to flourish, and the people are fed up with that.

It is not small government or large government that is the problem, it is bad government that is the problem.

What "pay as you go" must mean, if this empire is to last, is "accountability".

Those who take a seat in government must be held accountable for their civil wrongs and for their crimes and pay as they go.

The motto must become "if you do wrong while in the public trust you will pay and you will go"; that is pay go we can believe in.

Tuesday, June 9, 2009

The Conservative In Chief is what Bush II was called by neoCons until everything he did ended up back in the garbage where it came from.

The mourning Joe program "Morning Joe" on MSNBC has been mourning the decisive defeat of what the republicans call "conservatism" in the last two U.S. elections.

The people of the United States sent a clear message that Joe Scarborough does get.

He does not like it, but he does get the fact that they went down and that they went down for not only what they said but for what they did to the nation.

He also gets why, in terms of economics, "conservative economics" leaves a bad taste in the nation's mouth.

He says over and over that the Bush II regime, alongwith its republican rubber stamp congress, spent what the nation did not have, and spent us into great debt.

With nothing but wars we can not seem to end, Katrina destruction, and a long line of deficits in the future for our children and grandchildren, in the wake of "conservative" government, there is little wonder the nation has had it with "conservatives".

To be sure Joe is a Cornservative at heart, because his ideas come from the corn belt and the deep south.

He wants to brand that cornservative sentiment as conservatism, but the Buckley clan would not go down that road, because it is a false front. For heaven sake Buckley voted for Obama!

Joe is talking environmentalism by calling it conservation, then saying "conservative" means conservation. Yeah Joe, the conservative republicans invented the environmental movement. Who put the Joe in Joke!

That dog won't hunt Joe, that is a joke.

The nation knows that conservatives are anti-environment and that they think the notion of global warming is a devil inspired idea; the nation knows that conservatives are blind warmongers that think you kill something when there is a problem.

They are now killing themselves because they have a problem - themselves.

Monday, June 8, 2009

The U.S. Supreme Court held to common sense, and used the smell test to decide that it is not constitutional to have a judge with an apparent bias sit on a case being heard in an appeals court.

Most people on the street would say DUH!, but the right wing of the Supreme Court filed dissents.

Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Scalia, Justice Alito, and Justice Thomas, predictably ganged up to say it is constitutional for a judge to decide a case involving that judge's number one political campaign contributor.

The right wing of the court just did not get the notion that due process of law requires an impartial judge, and that impartiality must appear to be there and must actually be there.

In this case a jury rendered a $50 million dollar verdict in the trial court against a company that contributed to the election campaign of a judge on the court of appeals to which the jury verdict was appealed.

The judge who received the monetary benefit from one of the litigants did not recuse himself from that case, but heard it over protestations.

Another story about the institutionalization of waste, reminiscent of the banking and housing excesses, appears on the media radar:

U.S. reliance on contractors has grown to "unprecedented proportions," says the bipartisan commission, established by Congress last year. More than 240,000 private sector employees are supporting military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thousands more work for the State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development.

But the government has no central data base of who all these contractors are, what services they provide, and how much they're paid. The Pentagon has failed to provide enough trained staff to watch over them, creating conditions for waste and corruption, the commission says.

Sunday, June 7, 2009

Most legal experts come down on the side of the argument that the Coleman lawsuit in Minnesota that has kept the U.S. Senate diminished was based on no substantial facts:

Guy-Uriel Charles, a Duke University professor who specializes in election law, said that he had not talked to any colleagues in the legal community who had made a convincing argument that Coleman could win his appeal.

“It’s not that Coleman hasn’t raised important questions,” Charles said. “If it is true that counties are interpreting the absentee ballot rules differently because of differential resources, that’s a question the legislature should address, but I do not think that’s a question the courts could address after the fact.”

(Politico, emphasis added). Some courts call this type of scenario a non-justiciable remedy, meaning it is a problem legislatures need to remedy.

Which means that the law is defective in some way that needs repair, which a court cannot repair, because it is not the court's duty nor jurisdiction to do so.

Some blogs that claim to be election integrity leaders originally extolled the virtues of Minnesota Election Law, while Dredd Blog pointed out the flaws in that law from day one.

If all states mimicked Minnesota law the Senate, and therefore the country's government, could be shut down by a large number of close elections for senators.

We were correct from day one that such blogs should acknowledge the error of their rhetoric and the short sightedness of their advocacy.

(c) Copyright

All original material is copyrighted by Dredd Blog. You may quote or use the material so long as there is a link back to Dredd Blog for every post you use. This is, among other things, to verify that no Dredd Blog text was changed. It must remain the same, no editing. Note that Dredd Blog has no commercial purpose. If it so happens that Dredd Blog may quote copyrighted material from other writers, it is only for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research."Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

--the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

--the nature of the copyrighted work;

--the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole;

--and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors." (17 U.S. Code § 107)